Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

btw, in Australia girls have been outperforming boys in the high school leaving exams for some number of years..... not sure how that anecdote fits into the scheme of things?

I believe you that in general girls will outperform boys in high school exam.Boys, in general, are not as serious and diligent as girls when come to study, but when we compare diligent boys to diligent girls, the statistic will be different. Boys will out perform girls.

Now the same in writing music, top composers are men as we have witnessed for centuries. Basically, when comes to the highest level of any activities, men ,in general, will out perform women.

Ah, no, the diligent girls outperform the diligent boys. The girls are topping the classes, there are more of them in the top cohort, any which way you look at it girls are performing stronger than their numbers would justify - and there have been some inquiries into the education of boys to find out what's going wrong with the kids with the Y chromosome.

Meantime, let's just clarify: you are saying that the achievements of females should be discounted because they are naturally more diligent?

lmao

You're missing the point: at the highest levels of talent and achievement for almost any activity, there are far more men than women. Take the SAT as an example. Men score slightly higher on the verbal section and significantly higher on the math section than do women. However, at the very top of the distribution, there are far more men than women (even though fewer men than women take the test). Moreover, the higher the score level, the higher the gender discrepancy.

The SAT obviously doesn't measure musically ability, but the point remains: at the upper echelons of any activity, men significantly outnumber women.

#1377748 - 02/19/1012:00 AMRe: Why We Dont Have Famous Female Composer In History ?
[Re: gooddog]

ChopinAddict
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 08/29/09
Posts: 6227
Loc: Land of the never-ending music

Originally Posted By: gooddog

Originally Posted By: RonaldSteinway

Originally Posted By: Elissa Milne

[quote=cast12]

btw, in Australia girls have been outperforming boys in the high school leaving exams for some number of years..... not sure how that anecdote fits into the scheme of things?

I believe you that in general girls will outperform boys in high school exam.Boys, in general, are not as serious and diligent as girls when come to study, but when we compare diligent boys to diligent girls, the statistic will be different. Boys will out perform girls.

Now the same in writing music, top composers are men as we have witnessed for centuries. Basically, when comes to the highest level of any activities, men ,in general, will out perform women.

Oink. Oink. Now is one of those(many)times I miss Steven's acerbic wit.

I agree with Deborah! I miss SV's comments too.RS, you made my day.

I posted the link above, but here is the full article:Gender Differences

by Gina Lynne LoSasso, PhD

Men are smarter than women

False: We all know this one's patently false, so let's buryit straight away. The fact is that the gals are every bitas smart as the guys are, and if the truth be told, theaverage guy would be quite reluctant to trade theintelligence and wisdom of the women in his life forincreased cognitive interaction with other men.

The varied intelligences and sensibilities of the sexescomplement each other. This is due to the blending of basicsimilarities and the unique perspective that emerges when ahuman being develops into a gendered individual.

Women score lower on IQ tests

False: While the average scores on standardized IQ tests formales (as a group) tend to be slightly higher than forfemales, the difference is negligible. IQ tests aredesigned to minimize bias in order to be able to makesensible comparisons between individuals within a largerpopulation. For that reason, items that are biased againsta particular group - a group distinguished, for example, bygender or race - are eliminated.

More boys are assessed as mentally retarded than girls

True: While male and female IQ test performance isstatistically equivalent on average, the male and femalescore distributions are quite different. There are more menscoring at both the upper and lower extremes of the normaldistribution curve. This reflects a greater variability ofscores within the male population and results in apreponderance of males at both tails of the bell curve.

But for the smaller size of female brains, male and femalebrains are the same

False: While female brains are slightly smaller than malebrains, the difference is negligible. There are otherstructural differences between the male and female brainthat may play greater roles in accounting for differences incognitive functioning. These differences include neuronaldensity, number of synapses, lateralization and localizationof functioning, and the relative sizes of the lobes,hemispheres, and corpus callosum.

Hormones exert a significant effect on cognition

True: Not only do hormones exert a profound influence onemotional behavior, but there is strong evidence of therelationship between hormone levels and cognitivefunctioning. This includes support for a curvilinearrelationship between testosterone levels and spatialability, and a linear relationship between estrogen levelsand verbal skills. This effect is profound enough in somefemales to diminish the left field advantage, or cause ashift to right field superiority, when female hormone levelsfall to a minimum during the premenstrual phase.

If we gave girl babies more "boy's toys" they'd develop thesame skills as boys

False: The truth is that babies are fed similar fare in thetoy department, with the possible exception of color-coding.Pink mobiles and rattles work just as well to exercisespatial and motor coordination as blue ones. However,certain behavioral factors, such as attitudes andexpectations, can affect a child's intellectual performance.Whether these factors are internal and self-imposed orexternal, like the expectations of parents, teachers andpeers, they act to limit or enhance cognitive ability andperformance regardless of sex.

Homosexual men tend to score in a pattern similar to femaleson IQ tests

True: From the limited studies that have been undertaken onthis topic, findings suggest that homosexual men tend tohave patterns of cognitive performance more similar to thoseof women than to those of heterosexual men.

Women who are masculine in appearance and personalityusually exhibit a pattern of cognitive ability more similarto males than to females

True: This is a well-known effect relating to hormonalinfluences. To add to the complexity of the situation,left-handed individuals tend to possess a pattern ofcognitive strengths and weaknesses more similar toright-handed individuals of the opposite sex! li

Most historical geniuses have been male

True::But while historical figures of genius have typicallybeen male, there are very strong social, political andcultural factors that determine who goes down in our historybooks...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. Thefact that women's achievements have been routinelyunderrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record.

For a look at some truly marvelous contributions from womenof genius and spirit, visit:

(the link doesn't work any more... )

Men are better at arithmetic than women

False: Women excel in skills involving basic arithmeticalcalculation. As a group, their performance is superior tothat of men.

In discussions of individual differences, it is important tonote that there is typically a substantial overlap of maleand female score distributions in a particular skill evenwhen there is a statistically significant inter-genderdifference in that skill. So generalizations are oflimited predictive value on an individual level; when allyou know about a person is gender, it is impossible tomeaningfully speculate about his or her cognitive abilities.

Men have better spatial skills than women

True: This is particularly true regarding tasks that requiremental rotation, a right hemisphere task. This finding isrobust and consistent. However, it does not follow that menare stronger in right hemisphere functioning in general.For example, women are distinctly better at recognizingfacial expressions, and some studies show that women havesuperior ability to distinguish melodic sound patterns.Since these too are right hemisphere tasks, it would beincorrect to say that either gender is better at righthemisphere tasks. It would be more correct to say that eachgender excels in different kinds of right-hemisphere tasks.

Women have greater focus and are able to stick with a tasklonger

False: The opposite is true. This appears to be primarilyrelated to testosterone levels. Automatization, orperseverance while engaging in behaviors that do not requireexcessive physical or mental exertion (like standing guardor working on an assembly line), is also related totestosterone levels.

Women have better verbal skills than men

True::The greatest female advantage appears with respect tomeasures of general verbal ability, anagrams, and quality ofspeech production. The advantage increases with theintroduction of a memory or learning component that raisestask complexity.

Males have faster processing speed

False: Women consistently outperform men on tests ofpsychomotor speed and accuracy based on visual stimuli. Thedifference is very pronounced in young children. While thefemale advantage persists into adulthood, it graduallybecomes less prominent.

Men are better mathematicians

True: Although the gap has narrowed with the equalization ofopportunity between genders, there is a persistent maleadvantage in mathematical performance (at least as it standstoday). This is particularly true in the more advancedrealms of theoretical mathematics and physics.

The differences in ability between the sexes comes down togenetics

False: There are many factors that contribute to observedinter-gender differences in cognitive ability. Theseinclude, but are not limited to, biological, environmental,psychological, hormonal, and socio-cultural factors.

Roles, opportunities, attitudes and expectations have anextremely significant effect on the development of skillsand talents. These factors are all the more significantbecause, in our roles as teachers, parents, peers andself-actualizing beings, we can modify and control them inorder to maximize the actualization of human potential.

Disclaimer: Contrary studies may exist. The author hasdone her best to present some of the most robust,consistent, and up-to-date findings on these issues.

btw, in Australia girls have been outperforming boys in the high school leaving exams for some number of years..... not sure how that anecdote fits into the scheme of things?

I believe you that in general girls will outperform boys in high school exam.Boys, in general, are not as serious and diligent as girls when come to study, but when we compare diligent boys to diligent girls, the statistic will be different. Boys will out perform girls.

Now the same in writing music, top composers are men as we have witnessed for centuries. Basically, when comes to the highest level of any activities, men ,in general, will out perform women.

Ah, no, the diligent girls outperform the diligent boys. The girls are topping the classes, there are more of them in the top cohort, any which way you look at it girls are performing stronger than their numbers would justify - and there have been some inquiries into the education of boys to find out what's going wrong with the kids with the Y chromosome.

Meantime, let's just clarify: you are saying that the achievements of females should be discounted because they are naturally more diligent?

lmao

You're missing the point: at the highest levels of talent and achievement for almost any activity, there are far more men than women. Take the SAT as an example. Men score slightly higher on the verbal section and significantly higher on the math section than do women. However, at the very top of the distribution, there are far more men than women (even though fewer men than women take the test). Moreover, the higher the score level, the higher the gender discrepancy.

The SAT obviously doesn't measure musically ability, but the point remains: at the upper echelons of any activity, men significantly outnumber women.

No I am not missing your point - I am disagreeing with your point. In Australia males do NOT do better in the equivalent of SAT scores, so here you have a large population sample which disproves this global statement you've made about what men and women do achieve.

Now, leaving that aside, let's assume your assertion "men significantly outnumber women in the upper echelons of any activity" is correct: this in itself does not discredit the suggestions that have been put forward about why there are not so many famous female composers (societal pressures and expectations, reduced opportunities, higher female mortality, etc.).

Ah, no, the diligent girls outperform the diligent boys. The girls are topping the classes, there are more of them in the top cohort, any which way you look at it girls are performing stronger than their numbers would justify - and there have been some inquiries into the education of boys to find out what's going wrong with the kids with the Y chromosome.

Meantime, let's just clarify: you are saying that the achievements of females should be discounted because they are naturally more diligent?

lmao

Here let me clear. To achieve something you need two things: 1. talent and 2. persistancy.Most boys are lacking the second variable, however, are stronger in talent. Yet, girls are extremely more diligent and patient to practice to achieve the goals.

Now, when variable 2 is eliminated because top tier players have variable two, only variable one that will differentiate the result. In general, males will win regardless whether the activities are manly or non manly activities. Let's get some examples:

Let's start with female activities that men are better (note: the comparison is between the highest performance,not the average performance)

1. all activities, I cannot think any activities that majority women are better.

The only activities that men are not good is doing house chores....Men are totally not talented when come to cleaning house, feeding kids, doing laundries, washing dishes, vacuming, remembering birthday, etc. Women are by far much more talented in these activities. In order for men to perform at woman level, they must practice hard. Women do these activities very naturally.

We are not talking about mid level performance....We are talking the highest performance level.

The OP asked why there has not been a famous female composer. The reason is that female just are unable to attain that level. Again, we are talking at the highest level of achievement. Otherwise, there should have been many females attaining that level. It is only writing notes on a piece of paper, no physical requirement to write music...It is totally brain power.

I just do not understand why people are so defensive about this kind of thing. Every race, gender, etc has its strengths and weaknesses.

There have been no women of genius and very few of considerable talent in chess, mathematics and musical composition and any other pursuit for which a high level aptitude for abstract reasoning is a necessary condition( while there have been many women of genius in literature and the performing arts, areas which have the least requirement for abstract reasoning)!

If M. Curie seems an exception there is a strong case that her contrbutions were experimental(empirical) not theoretical. That does not diminish her contributions but is consistant with the premise of the discussion here. And if you wish to argue that she was a theoretician then she is the exception that proves the rule.

A greater male aptitude for abstract reasoning has been identified in a wide range of cognitive tests and has been observed so often through out recorded history that we have the stereotype that 'men are more logical than women' and that a certain type of rigorous abstract thinking represents 'thinking like a man'. Just like tests and historical observation lead us to say that ‘women are more perceptive, intuitive and discerning of how people feel and what they might be thinking'

These measured observations and stereotypes measure and reflect male superiority in an aptitude that is a necessary condition for genius in mathematics and related areas and a great advantage for even the lesser ability that is necessary for the usual professional work in these areas, i.e., an applied mathematician vs a theoretical mathematician.

These measurements and observations are sufficient to explain why all those MOST gifted with this aptitude, i.e., abstract reasoning, are males. There is very strong logical and physiological evidence that male superiority in the aptitude for abstract reasoning is rooted in physiology (testosterone and its effect on the architecture of the brain)!

In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract domains of accomplishment.

In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophy—and no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe). In the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women scientists have usually been empirical rather than theoretical, with leading cases in point being Henrietta Leavitt, Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Irene Joliot-Curie, and Marie Curie herself.

In the arts, literature is the least abstract and by far the most rooted in human interaction; visual art incorporates a greater admixture of the abstract; musical composition is the most abstract of all the arts, using neither words nor images. The role of women has varied accordingly. Women have been represented among great writers virtually from the beginning of literature, in East Asia and South Asia as well as in the West. Women have produced a smaller number of important visual artists, and none that is clearly in the first rank. No female composer is even close to the first rank. Social restrictions undoubtedly damped down women’s contributions in all of the arts, but the pattern of accomplishment that did break through is strikingly consistent with what we know about the respective strengths of male and female cognitive repertoires. Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills.

Something I find interesting is that it seems to be a lot easier for women to break into the top ranks as performers than as composers. Whereas we're having difficulty coming up with well-known present day female composers, the list of female performers is relatively long and includes two of the greatest artists of our century - Alicia de Larrocha and Martha Argerich.

And on violin, the current roster of top artists may actually have more women than men:

And arguably the most famous cellist in history was female - Jacqueline du Pre. (Well, she's at least in the top 5.)

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

We are not talking about mid level performance....We are talking the highest performance level.

The OP asked why there has not been a famous female composer. The reason is that female just are unable to attain that level. Again, we are talking at the highest level of achievement. Otherwise, there should have been many females attaining that level. It is only writing notes on a piece of paper, no physical requirement to write music...It is totally brain power.

I just do not understand why people are so defensive about this kind of thing. Every race, gender, etc has its strengths and weaknesses.

continuing to lmao

Honestly, it boggles the mind to think there are people who actually believe this. If this is the view you hold you will surely find ways to justify it.

And arguably the most famous cellist in history was female - Jacqueline du Pre. (Well, she's at least in the top 5.)

More famous for being famous. Her EMI Elgar concerto notwithstanding (with Barbirolli), she tended to be awfully inconsistent, even as a young lass. I consider Fournier, Casals and Rostropovich far greater cellists. Your piano and violin examples, are, however, spot on.

the ability to create(compose) music is as i said the most abstract art, the ability to perform someting that someone else has already envisoned is like reading a novel someone else has written. I can read and maybe even act in a play by Shakespheare but could never come up with the profound insight into the human condition that he did.

We are not talking about mid level performance....We are talking the highest performance level.

The OP asked why there has not been a famous female composer. The reason is that female just are unable to attain that level. Again, we are talking at the highest level of achievement. Otherwise, there should have been many females attaining that level. It is only writing notes on a piece of paper, no physical requirement to write music...It is totally brain power.

I just do not understand why people are so defensive about this kind of thing. Every race, gender, etc has its strengths and weaknesses.

Let me pose my framing again, this time to you directly, RonaldSteinway.

If what you say is true, why are there many female authors "at the highest level of achievement"? George Elliot, Virginia Woolf, Doris Lessing, A. S. Byatt, etc. I purposely do not list "romantic period piece" authors, like Jane Austen, just to prevent the counter-argument that famous woman authors simply write period romances. (A counter-argument I do not believe.) The list goes on: Gertrude Stein, Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro. For sheer intellectual brilliance and literary genius, these woman are at the very top of the game.

This is why I think the lack of woman composers is due to a subtle societal influence.

So: I think your claim is nonsense, and offer this argument as a proof. Dispute the point (although your popularity rating can't be very stable right now) or hold your peace.

I follow composers for the Anglican Communion closely, and I can tell you that there are a number of very fine females writing music for the Church. I've admired many of their compositions (particularly Judith Bingham), but none have so far crossed over to repertory status as, say, Patrick Gowers with his anthem Viri Galilaei.

Now, I would attempt to argue with Ronald, but I fear that I will be accused of becoming a male composer, because... I couldn't make it as a female one! :D:D:D

There there, Nikolas - never say never! I wonder why you're interested in this topic at all, Ronald? I thought that composers are only musician wannabes. In that case, I'd expect that women would excel in composition... Or maybe we're so sadly deficient that even being a good wannabe is out of the question.

Let me pose my framing again, this time to you directly, RonaldSteinway.

If what you say is true, why are there many female authors "at the highest level of achievement"? George Elliot, Virginia Woolf, Doris Lessing, A. S. Byatt, etc. I purposely do not list "romantic period piece" authors, like Jane Austen, just to prevent the counter-argument that famous woman authors simply write period romances. (A counter-argument I do not believe.) The list goes on: Gertrude Stein, Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro. For sheer intellectual brilliance and literary genius, these woman are at the very top of the game.

This is why I think the lack of woman composers is due to a subtle societal influence.

So: I think your claim is nonsense, and offer this argument as a proof. Dispute the point (although your popularity rating can't be very stable right now) or hold your peace.

-Jason

As many posters in this thread have pointed out, gender differences are far less pronounced in verbal ability than in mathematician and spacial reasoning ability. Thus, it's unsurprising that there have been many great female authors in history. But still, the greatest authors in history have been overwhelming men.

I'm not denying that social factors prevented many women from composing during the peak of classical music. I'm just pointing out that even if women had been able to compose more easily during the 1700's and 1800's, we still wouldn't have a female Chopin or Brahms, let alone Bach or Beethoven

#1377837 - 02/19/1003:19 AMRe: Why We Dont Have Famous Female Composer In History ?
[Re: pno]

Elene
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 12/26/07
Posts: 1425
Loc: Land of Enchantment

A sad, sad thread. People at PW are relatively educated, yet there is so much prejudice and ignorance.

And HELLOOO, there have been a number of female composers in history whose names we still know today-- i.e., they are famous. Some, but not all, have been mentioned here.

"Actually, it's my mom who first told me that guys perform better even in the domains that are traditionally considered female activities, and I totally agree with her."

I'd love to know your mom's qualifications and her evidence for making this statement. You haven't presented any. However, I won't be returning to this thread to read any more-- it's far too depressing.

I'm not denying that social factors prevented many women from composing during the peak of classical music. I'm just pointing out that even if women had been able to compose more easily during the 1700's and 1800's, we still wouldn't have a female Chopin or Brahms, let alone Bach or Beethoven

What you are "just pointing out" is something about yourself, I'm afraid, and nothing at all about whether we would have "great" women composers had all external factors been equal with to those affecting men.

1. all activities, I cannot think any activities that majority women are better.

The only activities that men are not good is doing house chores....Men are totally not talented when come to cleaning house, feeding kids, doing laundries, washing dishes, vacuming, remembering birthday, etc. Women are by far much more talented in these activities. In order for men to perform at woman level, they must practice hard. Women do these activities very naturally.

I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you wrote this tongue in cheek... but I fear you truly believe in this outrageous, dated load of ****.

And you wonder why more women have not risen to the top in various spheres... not only do woman have to have the talent, determination and persistence to achieve... we have to battle beliefs and attitudes such as this.

there have been numerous studies showing that there are twice as many men falling on the 'extremes' as women. Here's an example of one study conducted by numerous doctors at top universities

If you also read the scientific studies on IQ tests you'll find plenty of evidence to show that these are flawed and do not accurately represent intelligence, genius or otherwise.

Most intelligence tests and studies were written and designed by men - originally to test men. Bias and skewed results abound!

Not only all that, but what they really measure is the ability to take tests. There is not even real agreement as to what "intelligence" even is, much less a method of testing it.

And no, I am not saying that because I tested poorly and want to make excuses for it. But it is blindingly obvious to me that doing well on IQ and aptitude tests is not a measure of anything worth calling intelligence.

These are dangerous waters, and I consider myself a feminist, but I don't I like the politically correct tenor of the discussion. There does actually seem to be a scarcity of women composers, even if you factor in all the societal stuff. The operative word is "seem" as obviously I can't prove it.

But would it be so horrible if it turned out there was something in the male brain that makes it more likely they'll be better at composing music? I can't cite them, but I do believe reading that there are studies indicating men are better at mechanical thinking, including spacial relations than women. I'm also almost certain there are studies that support the idea there are differences in the way men and women process language.

My point is, there are difference between the male and female brain. This isn't bad, or sexist in and of itself. it simply is.

So go ahead all you p.c.'ers. Savage me if you must. I can take it :>)

Since you more or less announced that anyone who might disagree with you is merely being politically correct, what's the point?

As far as female composers are concerned, I'm not sure I find that IQ argument very convincing. Marilyn vos Savant probably has a far higher IQ (by 21st Century standards) that say... Bach, who would have been educated to a very modest standard by both our standards and contemporary standards of those living in more affluent areas such as The Dutch Republic.

There is very little evidence that, taken as a group, famous male composers had especially high IQs. In fact, some seemed to have problems with being rational at all!! Plenty of them didn't seem make their way in the world very effectively, and more or less stumbled through life in not particularly intelligent ways.

And on the math issue, I've read that Beethoven was quite poor at it (which possibly accounts for some weird metronome indications). He never even learned how to multiply, and if, for example, he wanted to know what 8 X 4 was, he would arrive at the answer by a series of additions, like this: "Eight and eight are sixteen; sixteen and eight are twenty-four; and twenty-four and eight is thirty-two".

...And you wonder why more women have not risen to the top in various spheres... not only do woman have to have the talent, determination and persistence to achieve... we have to battle beliefs and attitudes such as this.

I think the feminist movement has spent way too much time and effort "battling beliefs and attitudes". Don't you think if those activists spent their time composing, they would have gotten better results?

There was a discussion on talent. I mentioned I don't REALLY believe in it, in the sense of a gift from parents, or God, prior to birth. There is a thread about that in the teachers forum.

So, if talent is not exactly there, and is overated (there's a couple of books about that), then why should genre be any different? We are all born with equal abilities, but unfortunately unequal opportunities still, and are altered in the process of our lives.

This thread is a solid indication that social reasons are STILL keeping women out of certain job aspects! If you consider the beliefs of certain members here... Yes, Elene, it's sad but also brings out the truth in the most unimpressive way: It's us (humans) that make things happen and noone else!

(By all means, I'm not supporting that male and female are absolutely the same. We have differences, but I find no reason to choose between a male and a female...)

You're missing the point: at the highest levels of talent and achievement for almost any activity, there are far more men than women.

If measuring talent and achievement in making posts reflecting less than average intelligence in PW threads regarding women composers, I would have to agree: the men are winning, hands down. Well done, guys.